There are several countries with different access to weapons to common citizens. One of the most liberal is the USA, where practically everyone can own a gun.
The pro-gun movements have several, logically correct reasons to support this:
- Criminals are less likely to attack people if they can defend themselves with a gun. Attacking an armed man always holds the risk of a gunfight ending in being dead or wanted for murder (instead of just robbing).
- Criminals will get guns anyway, so we can only decide to arm or not the lawful citizens.
- If someone wants to kill, he can use other objects than guns too. "guns don't kill people, people do"
- Armed citizens are much harder to be subdued by a wannabe tyrant.
These reasons are all true. In Europe, where gun access is much harder, criminals still have guns and often rob banks and stores. However it's also true that they barely ever kill anyone, exactly because they don't expect or get any resistance. (except in funny stories where they bump into cops or armed security guards).
However we can't ignore that
gun violence is a serious problem, and about 10000 US citizens are killed with guns every year. This is much higher than in Europe, and there are no significantly more murders by knives or poisons in Europe. There are simply less murders in Europe.
The solution to this "mystery" is quite weird. If we define "criminal" as someone who brakes the law for his own interest, the pro-gun movements are 100% right. Giving guns to citizens is the best way to fight crime.
However the guy who shoots random people after losing his job gains nothing from it. Neither the guy who finds out that his wife has a lover, kill them both then gives his gun a blowjob. The kids massacring their schoolmates and teachers also gain nothing from their killing spree. The youth from terrible neighborhoods want personal gains from their crimes, but they are so clumsy that they never had a chance. Soon after their bloody crime they get captured or killed by cops.
The problem is that most of the violent acts are
not performed by cold-blooded criminals. They are performed by morons, who act irrationally, under the effect of emotions, alcohol or drugs. They often kill themselves or surrender to the police shortly after the act. They don't plan their act, they don't have serious preparations.
While a criminal would have guns or equally dangerous objects anyway, a having guns or not have critical differences in the outcome of the moron's act. In Europe their rampage usually ends with broken chairs and broken bones, but usually without fatalities. The same idiot in the US kills half dozen people before the cops take him down.
The big problem is that simply we have more idiots than criminals (in all societies). While guns in the hands of the lawful citizens does decrease planned crimes, they drastically increase the number of fatalities in brawls and domestic disputes.
Next time when you vote for or against a gun regulation, remember for the last time when someone gave a huge drama over some purple pixels and ask yourself: "do I really want to let this guy to own a lethal weapon?"
Of course there is a solution for that: allow guns for successful people only. Success demands logical skills and ability to override emotions. Such person is much less likely to do crazy things like killing random people on the street. Of course such distinction between people is unconstitutional both in the US and Europe. But even a goblin can dream. I'd like to emphasize that I'm
not against smart people owning guns. I'm against M&S owning guns. If I'd have to make up a gun control law, it would be a $5000/year "gun tax". Those who are able to pay it are able to decide when to use and when not.
Another idea: to own a gun, one must join a gun-group or militia. Any 10 lawful citizen can form one. However if any member commit crime with gun, the others are also sueable by the (family of) the victims and their group is disbanded. This way people would think twice who to invite to their group. If someone is unstable, known to make threats or having emotional outbursts would find no groups. The trick is that this case citizens and not the government would decide who is good enough for gun ownership.
PS about tyrants and civil defense: the guns in the hand of morons are under the control of any demagogue and extremist. While people with brains would use their guns to defend their freedom, morons gladly sign up for any movements that offers them any kind of "justice and retribution" for the "oppression" that caused their lack of success. Such morons would gladly believe that they are poor because of "jewish-black conspiracy", "leftist movements", "the unconstitutional rule of Washington" or "evil and heartless capitalists" or whatever that is not the truth: him being stupid and/or lazy.
